Quote from: Willie the Duck;1031461Okay, this seems to be mixing issues a bit. Mechanical social resolution mechanics are a completely separate issue than random, semi-random, or point-buy character creation.

Not when the claim is that point-buy is meant to generate better and more active roleplaying. Making that argument opens the door to pointing out that the same mentality that allows one to carefully create a character through bean-counting is what then removes any aspect of roleplaying in social situations in lieu of having to roll checks with the skills you either optimized or didn't optimized in the former bean-counting procedure.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032124Shitting yourself in mid-fight didn't work the first time, dude. It won't help you now.

While I may be guilty of a bit of  reductio ad absurdum, what I find telling is that you focus only on this and not on the other aspects of my posts, I mean, aside from the obvious and abundant nature of magical gender reassignment fey that clearly populate your worlds. Is this because it's easier to focus on the joke than actually exploring the idea that there is nothing wrong with playing a character that isn't mostly random?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032126Not when the claim is that point-buy is meant to generate better and more active roleplaying. Making that argument opens the door to pointing out that the same mentality that allows one to carefully create a character through bean-counting is what then removes any aspect of roleplaying in social situations in lieu of having to roll checks with the skills you either optimized or didn't optimized in the former bean-counting procedure.

I've not seen any claim made here that point buy is better or worse at creating better roleplaying.

The only argument I've seen made is that some people prefer the point buy method (or allocation or modelling or selections from a lifepath) to random generation. You're the only one claiming that one particular method is the only path to good roleplaying.

Frankly, from my experience the method of character generation has almost nothing to do with the quality of the roleplaying; good roleplayers have interesting characters (usually because they'll creatively interpet whatever aspects of their character they DO have control over) regardless of the method used and crappy roleplayers have crappy characters (the guy who RPs exactly one personality regardless of what they're playing isn't suddenly going to improve when handed a random character) whether rolled or allocated or point-bought.

You also seem to be erroneously conflating resolving social situations using rolls with point-buy, when it is entirely possible to have a point-buy game where social interaction can only be resolved only with roleplaying (heck, I've seen some point-buy systems that don't even use non-physical stats; you have to roleplay any mental/social task out with the GM).

I've also seen games with random generation that had entirely mechanized social interaction... lest we forget it was 3e that was home to the infamous 'Diplomancer' and its default character generation was 4d6 (drop lowest) and not point-buy.

There's certainly a discussion that can be had about best practices for social interaction resolution, but its a completely separate issue from what methods of character generation someone might prefer.

This thresd demonstrates how futile it can be to try and argue subjective tastes as they're objective facts. Conversations about tastes are fine but trying to prove is generally just an exercise in shit flinging, hyberpole, reductio ad absurdum,   and the furious construction of strawmen.

Over the best way  for adults to play "Let's pretend to be elf" games.

No character generation scheme appear to be driving any of the others out of existence. If you enjoy social mechanics and find them fun to use, use them, plenty of have them. If you find the a distraction at best, a crutch at worst don't play games with them or just ignore if they're there. For most rpgs, that's not hard.

Quote from: Chris24601;1032138I've not seen any claim made here that point buy is better or worse at creating better roleplaying.

I was directly answering to someone who had claimed that point-buy systems led to superior roleplaying.

QuoteYou also seem to be erroneously conflating resolving social situations using rolls with point-buy, when it is entirely possible to have a point-buy game where social interaction can only be resolved only with roleplaying (heck, I've seen some point-buy systems that don't even use non-physical stats; you have to roleplay any mental/social task out with the GM).

Sure, but by default any system that does have social skills (and most of them do) will have to put an emphasis on the mechanical resolution of social situations.  Otherwise, the guy who invested 75 of his 250 points in social skills will be completely ripped off when the guy who spent 0 points on social skills but is just better at roleplaying routinely shows him up by better speaking and better social approaches in actual roleplaying.

QuoteI've also seen games with random generation that had entirely mechanized social interaction... lest we forget it was 3e that was home to the infamous 'Diplomancer' and its default character generation was 4d6 (drop lowest) and not point-buy.

Yes, that was a very serious problem. It was a very serious problem because skills in 3e, including the social skills, was point-buy.

Quote from: Nexus;1032141This thresd demonstrates how futile it can be to try and argue subjective tastes as they're objective facts..

There's some arguments here that are absolutely objective fact.

FACT: if you're using point-buy, then the person who has studied the game more thoroughly and has expertise in what point-buy choices are superior versus what builds are inferior will have a real advantage over a newbie who has no such research experience.

FACT: if a game includes point-buy social skills, then either those social skill point-buys will have to give them a vastly superior edge over just roleplaying in social situations, or those social skills will all be horrible point-buy optimization choices and the game will thus be badly designed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032383Sure, but by default any system that does have social skills (and most of them do) will have to put an emphasis on the mechanical resolution of social situations.  Otherwise, the guy who invested 75 of his 250 points in social skills will be completely ripped off when the guy who spent 0 points on social skills but is just better at roleplaying routinely shows him up by better speaking and better social approaches in actual roleplaying.

And the point-buy system which doesn't even include social skills as things that can be bought (as was the case one system I mentioned) would NOT have the problem. Ergo, the problem you have is NOT with the point-buy but with the fact that it uses mechanical resolution of social interactions.

The only difference that Random Rolls for abilities makes with mechanically resolved social interactions is that who gets to be good at resolving them using those rules is random. The underlying problem with the rules that you have remains.

QuoteYes, that was a very serious problem. It was a very serious problem because skills in 3e, including the social skills, was point-buy.

Again, the problem would exist whether skill bonuses were determined by random roll or if proficiency gave a net X+1/X levels. The problem was not that people could put points into diplomacy; the problem WAS that the resolution table allowed high rolls with that skill to instantly turn enemies into fanatical allies and that the designers included means of gaming the system to gain bonuses to diplomacy well above what ranks in the skill alone would provide (indeed, unimproved Cha+4+level that max ranks would provide would not have been able to hit the needed DC's until late game when casters are throwing around 7th+ spells like candy).

It was the synergy bonuses, stat bumps, magic item enhancement bonuses to Charisma and relatively cheap skill bonuses to Diplomacy from magic items that pushed the Diplomacy bonus into the stratosphere and enabled the system to break; not the fact that you got points to improve your skills with every level.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032385FACT: if you're using point-buy, then the person who has studied the game more thoroughly and has expertise in what point-buy choices are superior versus what builds are inferior will have a real advantage over a newbie who has no such research experience.

Unless that player is not an asshole and helps the Newbies make their characters too; then they're all on an even field and able to face the challenges that the GM throws at them better than just having one shining star. That's how it happens here. Then there's the aforementioned can't help hyper-specializing himself into uselessness 'expert' in point buy.

QuoteFACT: if a game includes point-buy social skills, then either those social skill point-buys will have to give them a vastly superior edge over just roleplaying in social situations, or those social skills will all be horrible point-buy optimization choices and the game will thus be badly designed.

And if the game vastly rewards people who roll well on certain stats (ex. Charisma's effect on Reaction Rolls and number of henchmen/hirelings you can retain) it will give them a vastly superior edge over just roleplaying in social situations.

Again, you are conflating two separate problems... probably because doing so lets you try and lash the self-percieved millstone of mechanical resolution for social interactions around the neck of your disfavored character generation method. The problem is NOT the point buy... its the mechanics of the social interactions.

And that problem will vary from group to group. Not every group wants to roleplay out haggling with every merchant in the marketplace for a discount while stocking up on rope, pitons, rations and lamp oil. They just want to roll a Diplomacy (or Bargain if that's the skill in that system) get the result and move on.

Hell, I've seen one group where they make the Diplomacy skill check before they even speak and then use that as the basis to actually roleplay out the results ("Well, I botched that... [proceeds to give a speech to the Lord trying to win him to their cause where the character inadvertently implies the Lord's wife and daughter are whores]."). It requires the players to not just think about their character's headspace as they succeed, but also how they would fail.

I've also seen Diplomacy used as essentially a more instinctive "knowledge: etiquette" check where success has the GM tell the player what the proper manners, customs and 'best practices' are for trying to achieve what they want to do, but then leaves it to the player to actually roleplay the use of that knowledge and judges the results based on how well they roleplay the task. They typically also throw in an Insight check to inform the player of what it seems the target of their diplomacy wants and how he's reacting to the efforts.

Those may not be your preferred styles of play, but there's nothing wrong with those approaches either so long as everyone is having fun.

Nor is it wrong for someone who's NOT good at being a smooth talker to play a high Charisma character with lots of skill in social situations. Even if the player is stumbling over their words, any GM who doesn't treat their in-character words as magnetic and always taken in the best way possible in all situations is a shit GM deserving only of mockery and derision because they can't separate player ability from character ability. That holds true whether the high Charisma well trained at social task character got handed to them by the result of random rolls or was built using points as an avenue of wish fulfillment.

Which, frankly, is the whole reasoning behind mechanical resolution for social situations; to keep the naturally outgoing and charming players from being able to basically ignore the fact that they rolled a 5 Charisma and have no proficiency in anything related to etiquette or similar... but know they can get away with it because the GM uses only what the players say as their means of resolving situations and they're very good as a player at being persuasive.

One can argue the implementation of those resolution systems, but the reasoning that the player is not their character and so characters with smarter/more insightful/more charismatic players shouldn't get benefits over characters with dumber/more oblivious/less charismatic players is at least a worthwhile problem to attempt to tackle.

And different groups find different angles that work for them. I know one GM who flat out said that the Int/Wis/Cha scores would only be counting for mechanical widgets (i.e. save bonuses, spells known, etc.) and to not waste any points on non-physical skills because those elements would all come down to roleplay. That's valid.

So is the group who follows the Feng Shui approach of "Think up cool fight scenes, then wrap a plot around them" and the only point of social interaction is to move you to the next possible fight scene. So long as everyone's having a good time that's valid too.

As much as you want it to be true, there is no one right and true way to play roleplaying games and your "truths" are just, like, your opinion man.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032385There's some arguments here that are absolutely objective fact.

FACT: if you're using point-buy, then the person who has studied the game more thoroughly and has expertise in what point-buy choices are superior versus what builds are inferior will have a real advantage over a newbie who has no such research experience.

Objective perhaps, but requiring context. A point-buy system that is simple enough for its pros and cons to be taken in at a glance does not exhibit this "fact". Ditto for a game in which the ability scores so bought don't play enough of a factor in character advantage to matter .

QuoteFACT: if you're using point-buy, then the person who has studied the game more thoroughly and has expertise in what point-buy choices are superior versus what builds are inferior will have a real advantage over a newbie who has no such research experience.

Knowing the rules better makes you better at any game that isn't dirt simple and/or totally random. Well, yeah, that's called experience.

Take some players that have never played before and other who are veterans. Hae them roll up characters. I'll bet you a fair sum that experienced characters will be more effcient and well constructed in at least the options the player controls. Having been the noob among a group of pros in a DnD game I've seen that in action. A player that gone through the various splat books, Complete Guides to X,  equipment lists, etc, and picked out the best combination is going to create a more mechanically optimum character that some new guy that rolls up attributes and picks things that look cool. Sometimes substantially better if they pull stunts like rolling attributes until they get a set they like (can even 'play' the character and get it killed off) The margin of difference can be wider than I've generally seen in point buy set ups but I've heard stories.

Unless you advocate everything, down to equipment be randomized being a more experienced player is going to make difference regardless of hoe attributes are generated. Why is someone that's played longer is better at the game than someone that hasn't suddenly a Bad Thing when it comes to rpgs. I thought Old School was big on Player Knowledge counts .

Not sure why you seem so driven to prove chocolate ice cream and Star Trek are Objectively Superior to Strawberry and Star Wars. Its a preference.

"Just roleplaying" does not create an even field, far from it. Some people are just more socially oriented, better performers, better at reading the GM (which, IME is usually what
"Just role playing" is, working the gm not the NPC in question) including having a better relationship with the GM, thinking along the same lines as they do, etc.  Nothing wrong with that at its base, gaming is a social activity. But like real life, things are rarely even, they're just biased by more out of game aspects.

For me, social mechanics allow for more objectivity and IC consideration coming into play and less metagaming. Good social mechanics are like good combat mechanics in a way. They allow the player to work within them and exercise creativity to influence the out come which isn't a forgone conclusion or purely random, like good mechanics should, IMO.

Personally, I like systems that let me codify my characters personality including their limits mechanically yet there is a chance something might surprise me. Some of the most engrossing rp I've experienced has stemmed from 'losing' in some form of social contest, dealing with the repercussions and contextualizing what it meant about the character. But I can accept others have different preferences for how to go about it or don't care for it at all.

An yes, sometimes social contests an mechanics can be a short cut for those moments in a game that people just aren't interested in role playing out in detail or have no idea how to if they did. Which I feel is fair, players aren't required to be able replicate every physical or mental feat their characters can pull off.

Finally, with point buy, yes you could sink almost all your character creation resources into social skills but there's only so many which means you've shorted something else and a glib tongue isn't going to solve every problem. Depending on the style of game, maybe few to none of them.

Quote from: CarlD.;1032493Take some players that have never played before and other who are veterans. Hae them roll up characters. I'll bet you a fair sum that experienced characters will be more effcient and well constructed in at least the options the player controls. Having been the noob among a group of pros in a DnD game I've seen that in action. A player that gone through the various splat books, Complete Guides to X,  equipment lists, etc, and picked out the best combination is going to create a more mechanically optimum character that some new guy that rolls up attributes and picks things that look cool. Sometimes substantially better if they pull stunts like rolling attributes until they get a set they like (can even 'play' the character and get it killed off) The margin of difference can be wider than I've generally seen in point buy set ups but I've heard stories.

It doesn't even need to be character build stuff. Just having a player more versed in D&D-isms provides advantage. Knowing that there are rust monsters so bring a wooden weapon, but there are also druids with Warp Wood so bring a non-wooden one, and search for traps when you can afford the time (but watch out for ear seekers), and yes bring silver weapons for werewolves but not garlic for vampires... you can have serious discrepancy in PC success based on player experience even in games with limited character-creation min-maxing.

Which is not to say that the minmax potential of games like D&D 3e, GURPS, HERO System (note that this includes both point buy and mostly-not-point-buy) is significantly higher than other games. They are. It can be annoying. You really need to play those games with everyone on the same page about what level of minmaxing is as Pundy puts it "doing what players are meant to do, which is to maximize their own personal advantage as a player," and what level is unacceptable cheeZe.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032383Yes, that was a very serious problem. It was a very serious problem because skills in 3e, including the social skills, was point-buy.

No, it was because:

1. A single d20 v. DC roll is a moderately terrible skill check engine.
2. 3e included a table with objective DCs to hit to achieve predetermined effects in predetermined conditions, plus had tons of feats which could be used to goose your bonus way up.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1032505Which is not to say that the minmax potential of games like D&D 3e, GURPS, HERO System (note that this includes both point buy and mostly-not-point-buy) is significantly higher than other games. They are. It can be annoying. You really need to play those games with everyone on the same page about what level of minmaxing is as Pundy puts it "doing what players are meant to do, which is to maximize their own personal advantage as a player," and what level is unacceptable cheeZe.

I think there are caveats to the above. As far as basic attribute generation goes, yes, there are more choices involved in, say GURPS, for example than "Roll X number of dice in order" But there are plenty of min max and optimization choices available after that step and for GURPS and Hero while there are allot of options, I've found they're balanced against each other. You load up on one, you've left yourself weaker in another. There's few omni-character builds that have all their basis cover.

There are options that synergize effctively with each other and smart choice, but IME I've seen the same things in D and D and other random systems. Picking classes, feats, spells, etc. Some of comes down when a game has literally hundreds of supplments scattered across years by different authors everything is not going to be well balanced and someone dedicated will find tricks. It applies to GURPS, Hero, D and D, etc. If the game doesn't make the player randomly determine everything the character, some are going to make effecient choices, some are going to pick what they thinks is fun or cool, some won't give a damn, etc and experience is going to show.

But yeah, more rules and choices means there's more to work with. Generally there's more strategy and gamesmanship of various kinds in chess and Go than checkers which has more that Tic-tac-toe or Chutes and Ladders. What I don't agree with is that one format makes someone more likely to game that system for power and unfair advantage in role playing games. I've found that's tendency players have to begin with (its fun for them,the way their minds work or for whatever reason) or sometimes develop as an adaptation if others players or more so the gm has it to keep up. Certain types of games or styles of rules don't create power gamers from my experience, certain types of game will attract them but any game is going to drae people who like the ply style it supports. More hack and slashers are going to play D and D or Rifts than Fiaso but that doesn't mean those first two make people play that way.

Again, it comes to preferences. People play to have fun and people have fun in different ways. There's no Objectively correct way to enjoy RPGS as much as enthusiasts like us to argue and bash on each other about it. And Wille_the_Duck brings up an excellent points. One group's minmaxing and power gaming is another's smart play. Its mainly a problem when members of the same group have radically different approaches and preferences but that applies to many things.

Speaking for GURPS:

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1032505... Which is not to say that the minmax potential of games like D&D 3e, GURPS, HERO System (note that this includes both point buy and mostly-not-point-buy) is significantly higher than other games. They are. It can be annoying. You really need to play those games with everyone on the same page about what level of minmaxing is as Pundy puts it "doing what players are meant to do, which is to maximize their own personal advantage as a player," and what level is unacceptable cheeZe.

Yes experience lets you build more effective characters in GURPS and it's possible to minimax and build silly characters (either subhuman, nonsensical, or unrealistically focused munchkin designs) and I don't think GURPS runs well without a reasonably experienced GM, and unless an experienced GM wants silly characters, he can and should help players make characters, spot problems and not allow characters to be inappropriate, which can and should include making everyone's PC be reasonable for the game style he wants to run. Therefore, not an actual problem unless the problem is the GM.

And, most experienced GURPS players I (have) known are also not excessively optimizing their characters, both because they know the GM can/will/should correct them, and because they have experienced that it's more fun and interesting if they make appropriate characters.

Quote from: CarlD.;1032769I think there are caveats to the above. As far as basic attribute generation goes, yes, there are more choices involved in, say GURPS, for example than "Roll X number of dice in order" But there are plenty of min max and optimization choices available after that step and for GURPS and Hero while there are allot of options, I've found they're balanced against each other. You load up on one, you've left yourself weaker in another. There's few omni-character builds that have all their basis cover.
...

That too. The potential for silly munchkinism exists though if there are enough points allowed and not enough guidelines & limits. The silly munchkinism will be balanced in some sense but I think GM guidelines/limits/oversight still is wanted except when players are experienced and on the same page.

Quote from: Zalman;1032439Objective perhaps, but requiring context. A point-buy system that is simple enough for its pros and cons to be taken in at a glance does not exhibit this "fact". Ditto for a game in which the ability scores so bought don't play enough of a factor in character advantage to matter .

There are a few point-buy games that are notable for their abject simplicity.  These usually manage to avoid many of the pitfalls of the sort I'm talking about.

But the most notable point-buy games (GURPS, Shadowrun, Champions, WoD, etc etc) are not this sort of simplicity.

Quote from: CarlD.;1032493Knowing the rules better makes you better at any game that isn't dirt simple and/or totally random. Well, yeah, that's called experience.

In RPGs, it's also called bad design.

QuoteTake some players that have never played before and other who are veterans. Hae them roll up characters. I'll bet you a fair sum that experienced characters will be more effcient and well constructed in at least the options the player controls. Having been the noob among a group of pros in a DnD game I've seen that in action. A player that gone through the various splat books, Complete Guides to X,  equipment lists, etc, and picked out the best combination is going to create a more mechanically optimum character that some new guy that rolls up attributes and picks things that look cool. Sometimes substantially better if they pull stunts like rolling attributes until they get a set they like (can even 'play' the character and get it killed off) The margin of difference can be wider than I've generally seen in point buy set ups but I've heard stories.

Yes, these are all problems of versions of D&D where point-buy subsystems have been introduced. It's why 3.x eventually became a gigantic mess, for example.